EDITIONS

Follow us

The state requirement, which was set to go into effect in July, is based on a 2015 conclusion from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that the weed killer was a “probable” human carcinogen. | Getty

Federal judge halts Monsanto warning label requirement in California

A federal judge halted a California requirement that Monsanto place warning labels on its Roundup products, ruling there is “insufficient evidence” the active ingredient in the popular weed killer causes cancer.

U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California William Shubb issued a preliminary injunction late Monday preventing California regulators from requiring the labels, pending the outcome of a First Amendment lawsuit against them.

Advertisement

The warning label requirement, which was set to go into effect in July, is based on a 2015 conclusion from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that the chemical was a “probable” human carcinogen. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment decided to list the herbicide glyphosate as a carcinogen under its Proposition 65 rule that requires businesses to disclose the presence of chemicals in products that are known carcinogens. An IARC finding is one way under the law that a chemical can be subject to Prop 65.

The lawsuit was brought by Monsanto, which uses gylphosate in its popular Roundup product, and agricultural groups such as the National Association of Wheat Growers and the National Corn Growers Association in November. Several state attorneys general and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed the legal challenge.

The judge ruled that the California state agency depended too much on IARC’s analysis and didn’t take into account studies from the Environmental Protection Agency, multiple bodies of the World Health Organization and other regulators that the cancer risk from glyphosate is unclear.

IARC’s findings were later dismissed by two European Union bodies — the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority — but remain a significant reference point in the debate surrounding the pesticide’s health risks.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter

Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The judge didn't officially rule on the merits of the case but appears to have given a lot of weight to the plaintiffs' arguments. When "California seeks to compel businesses to provide cancer warnings, the warnings must be factually accurate and not misleading. As applied to glyphosate, the required warnings are false and misleading," the ruling states. "Plaintiffs have thus established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the warning requirement violates their First Amendment rights."

But the judge did allow California to continue listing glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer in its health and safety codes. The listing is government speech, not private speech, and Monsanto failed to show that it's caused "irreparable harm," the judge ruled.

"We are pleased that the listing of glyphosate remains in effect, and we believe our actions were lawful," said a spokesman for the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in a statement.

The California attorney general said he was evaluating the legal options in light of the ruling. "Attorney General [Xavier] Becerra continues to believe that providing the factual, truthful and non-misleading warning required by the law does not violate a business’s First Amendment rights and will provide consumers with valuable information enabling them to make informed choices," his office said in a statement.

The plaintiffs in the case hailed the decision.

“Every regulatory body in the world that has reviewed glyphosate has found it safe for use and no available product matches glyphosate with a comparable health and environmental safety profile," Chandler Goule, chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, said in a statement Tuesday. "We are pleased Judge Shubb granted our request, which is the first step in our efforts to prevent California from forcing farmers, growers and manufacturers to place false and misleading labels on agricultural products. California’s erroneous Prop 65 listing of glyphosate is not based on data, facts or science and we look forward to continuing to make our case to the court.”